[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6347-H6352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as we 
come to the floor again as part of what we have come to call our Iraq 
Watch, and I am grateful that we are joined by several colleagues this 
evening, Mr. Bishop from New York, Mr. McDermott from Washington State, 
and others that will be joining us throughout this early part of the 
evening.
  Now, let me start, as we always have, by recognizing the valiant 
service of the men and women who wear the uniform. And as our leader 
Ms. Pelosi often says, our men and women who wear the uniform deserve a 
leadership that is worthy of the sacrifice that they make on a daily 
basis. I am proud of this Congress, inasmuch as it has been able to 
distinguish the warriors from the war, and so we continue to honor 
those brave men and women who wear the uniform of this country and who 
sacrifice daily on our behalf.
  And yet, as events unfold around the globe, but specifically in the 
Middle East as it relates to Iraq, what we find is even amongst those 
who initially favored the war, such as pundits like Thomas Friedman, 
who now have come to say that we have got to come to the realization 
that we are no longer midwifing democracy in Iraq but, in essence, 
babysitting an insurgent civil war. So this evening we come here to 
discuss Iraq from the context of the mistakes that have been made and 
the need for accountability, starting with the resignation of the 
Secretary of Defense.
  At some point, somewhere along the line, there has got to be 
accountability for the actions that have transpired in Iraq. We were 
wrong about the information that led up to going into the war. In fact, 
the strongest critics against us going into the war were people such as 
Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Kissinger and Baker, hardly left-leaning 
liberals, but people who understood international policy and the severe 
consequences that would result if we ended up going into Iraq without 
the full support of the world. And so Americans everywhere kind of have 
to scratch their heads and say, how is it that we had the entire world 
with us when we invaded Afghanistan and end up virtually with no 
support in Iraq.
  It is clear from discussions with policymakers and former generals 
that a series of mistakes have been made, not the least of which was 
going against our own national policy, the Weinberger Doctrine, which 
stated very clearly the United States should never go to war against 
another country unless its vital interests are threatened; and the 
Powell corollary to that, if we do go in, we should go in with 
overwhelming force.
  In both cases, that doctrine and corollary were rejected in favor of 
the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism, which has left our allies 
looking at us as we twist slowly in the winds of Iraq, as Friedman 
says, babysitting an insurrection and civil war while our most precious 
of resources, our men and women who serve this country, are in harm's 
way.
  We need a new direction. We ought to send a very clear signal to the 
world, to the people in this country that it is time for 
accountability; that it is time to say that mistakes were made and then 
move on. And we can start with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stepping 
down, as he should.
  The head of the 9/11 Commission has indicated to both Republicans and 
Democrats alike that we need to continue to adopt those resolutions and 
recommendations that they have found in their studies, 20 of which 
still aren't implemented, which is over half. And so in order to 
prosecute the war on terror, we have got to be able to accomplish those 
goals. But without a Congress that wants to hold the President 
accountable, that is not going to happen.
  A gentleman that has been doing just that and speaking out in his 
district has been Tim Bishop of New York, and at this time, I would 
like to yield to him.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from Connecticut for 
yielding, and I also thank him for his ongoing leadership on this and 
so many other issues of importance here in our Congress.
  Let me just pick up on a few comments that were made with respect to 
oversight and accountability. And I find it particularly ironic, when 
one studies the tragic history of our involvement in Iraq, and whether 
it begins with the misuse of prewar intelligence or whether it begins 
in effect with the reasons that we were given for going to war, none of 
which turned out to be accurate, all of which turned out really to be 
more about marketing a war than about a real threat that imperiled our 
safety and security, that we are now being told by these very same 
people that have led us so far astray, that have so weakened our Nation 
and so exposed us to a war on terror that we must fight much more 
vigilantly than we have thus far; we are now being told that these are 
the people that we must continue to keep in leadership positions in 
order to keep us free and safe. And, in fact, it is their very 
leadership, and I am speaking specifically about the Secretary of 
Defense and other civilian leaders in the Pentagon, that have led us so 
far astray.
  When you chronicle the mistakes that were made in Iraq, we best-cased 
the result of our involvement in Iraq and we worst-cased the threat 
that was there. We invaded with too few troops. We have certainly 
sufficient troops to overthrow a regime that spent a fraction on 
defense relative to what we spend on defense, but we invaded with too 
few troops to secure the peace. We failed to secure the borders. We 
failed to secure ammo dumps. We failed to see to it that our troops 
were properly equipped and outfitted, and that was because the 
leadership of the Pentagon refused to accept the warnings that had been 
given by so many different experts in this area, that we weren't going 
to be welcomed with open arms, that we weren't going to be treated as 
conquering heroes and liberators, but in fact we were going to be 
viewed as occupiers and invaders.
  But our troops arrived with insufficient body armor, with 
insufficiently armored vehicles because this insurgency was not 
recognized or anticipated. And yet we have these very same people 
telling us that they are the ones that are going to keep us safe.

                              {time}  1630

  I will just say one other thing, and then yield back. I think this is 
an administration that specializes in giving us false choices. We are 
now being presented with the latest false choice, and that is that 
those of us who do not support the ``stay the course'' in Iraq can be 
accused of wanting to abandon the war on terror.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a soul on our 
side of the aisle that would advocate abandoning the war on terror. 
Everyone on our side of the aisle would advocate continuing to wage 
that war, but to wage it with the full resources of this Nation and to 
wage it much more intelligently than we have thus far.
  The sad truth about our involvement in Iraq is that it has stripped 
us of the resources that we need to wage the war on terror. It is why 
Osama bin Laden remains at large 5 years after September 11, and it is 
why al Qaeda remains as powerful as it is.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will let me ask a 
question, knowing you are from New York and knowing specifically you 
are from Long Island, and, of course, with a solemn date approaching us 
of September 11, do most citizens in New York understand, in your 
estimation, the difference between the war on global terrorism and the 
war in Iraq and see

[[Page H6348]]

them as different subject matters, or, as Ike Skelton on the Armed 
Services Committee has been so nobly trying to demonstrate, the 
difference between the insurrection and civil war in Iraq and the war 
on terror? Or has the administration's attempts to blur the lines 
confused people? What is the sense of New Yorkers?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. My sense is that New Yorkers have not been 
fooled. My sense is that New Yorkers, and there is hardly a New Yorker 
who did not lose a loved one or did not lose a friend in the Twin 
Towers, most New Yorkers recognize that we are fighting two separate 
and distinct wars, despite, as you say, the administration's efforts to 
blur the distinction and to cojoin them in an effort to justify 
something that the vast majority of Americans now recognize was a 
tragic mistake.
  When I go around my district, one of the questions I ask people is do 
they feel safer today, in August of 2006, than they did on September 
12, 2001, and the answer overwhelmingly is no. The answer 
overwhelmingly is no.
  I think most people recognize in my district, and I am grateful for 
this, that the war in Iraq, which was purportedly to make us safe, make 
us more safe, has in fact imperiled us beyond where we were the day we 
invaded.
  I think that that is an important recognition and an important 
distinction for those of us who recognize the distinction needs to 
continue to be made.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We have been joined by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. I think for a number of our listeners, really the whole 
idea for coming to this floor came from Bill Delahunt. The idea really 
wasn't hatched here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It 
was an idea that was hatched in town hall meetings in Nantucket and on 
the Cape that Bill Delahunt held. He encouraged other Members, 
including myself, who had them in West Hartford and Manchester, 
Connecticut, and from there, because our voices were muffled. Or if you 
spoke out against the war, you were deemed unpatriotic. But it was 
because of his efforts in organizing an Iraq Watch that this has 
persisted and the truth has been able to continue to come out with 
regard to our involvement.
  At this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the founder 
of this great movement.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think, 
tragically, and I mean this sincerely, tragically those of us who spoke 
out early against the invasion in Iraq, because we believed that there 
was not significant evidence which established that Iraq was a clear 
and present danger to the United States and our allies, we have been 
proven to be correct.
  Tim Bishop, our colleague from New York, used the term ``abandoned.'' 
Accusations have been made that some who have criticized the competence 
and the rationale of this administration regarding Iraq have 
``abandoned'' the war on terror. That is patently false. That is 
untrue. There is no relationship between the war against terrorism and 
the war in Iraq.
  Now, let me put forth a hypothesis: this administration abandoned the 
war against terror in a very real way when we were distracted by the 
neoconservative vision of invading Iraq, because the consequence of the 
invasion of Iraq was in a large degree the diversion of those assets 
and initiatives that were necessary to secure Afghanistan, where al 
Qaeda had been harbored, where al Qaeda thrived, and where there was an 
opportunity to apprehend Osama bin Laden.
  But, no, we were more interested in Saddam Hussein, who was an 
archenemy of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein 
an apostate, an infidel, an enemy of his version, his perverted 
version, of Islam. In fact, in 1994, it was Osama bin Laden who 
approached the Saudi royal family and suggested they combine forces and 
depose Saddam Hussein because he was an apostate; he was a defiler of 
Islam.
  So what do we have today? We have a situation in Afghanistan where 
the headlines now read: ``A Resurgence of the Taliban.'' That 
government that harbored and gave support to Osama bin Laden and al 
Qaeda, they are coming back. Another headline in the past 2 days, the 
British general who heads the NATO deployment in Afghanistan made this 
plea: ``I need more troops or we will lose Afghanistan.''
  So who abandoned the war on terror? Who abandoned the war on terror? 
Do not confuse the war in Iraq and the war on terror. We all have an 
obligation to educate ourselves about the differences, the nuances, the 
realities on the ground. This is too important. This is about our 
future, and this is about the future of American generations far into 
the next decades.
  I know my colleague from Maryland who has joined us, Chris Van 
Hollen, has a specific interest in Afghanistan. What is happening today 
in Afghanistan is a disgraceful example of the incompetence and the 
legacy of this administration's policy by going into Iraq.
  And what have we achieved? We have achieved a resurgence of the 
Taliban and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan. By the way, what 
else we have achieved is we have created a new superpower in the 
region, Iran. Because while we are standing here discussing among 
ourselves this region in the world, let it be very clear to the 
American people that there is an emerging warm relationship between 
Iran and the new government in Iraq. Do your homework, and you will 
discover that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement that 
exists today between Iraq and Iran.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I would like to ask the gentleman a 
question: What you are telling me and you are telling our viewing 
audience this evening, you voted, and I believe the vote was near 
unanimous in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to invade 
Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom; is that correct?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted, and, again, with one exception out of 435 
Members, there was a unanimous vote here in this Chamber, bipartisan, 
Republicans and Democrats and Independent, to go to Afghanistan and 
destroy al Qaeda and find Osama bin Laden and apprehend him.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Was not the rest of the world united in 
that effort with the United States?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I have this vivid memory of the day after 9/11, a 
headline that appeared in the paper of record in France that said: ``We 
Are All Americans Today.'' We had support in every corner of the world 
for what we were doing. We would have succeeded in the war on terror by 
now. But, no. But, no. We invaded Iraq, and clearly that has created 
implications for our national security.
  If I may just for one moment, and I am not alone when I say this, it 
is interesting, today in the Wall Street Journal a former Republican 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who 
succeeded in securing a majority for the Republican Party in this House 
in 1994, was quoted. Remember, this is a Republican, a leader. The 
speculation is that he is considering running for the Presidency in 
2008.
  This is what Newt Gingrich had to say. Just consider the following: 
``Osama bin Laden is still at large.'' I agree. ``Afghanistan is still 
insecure.'' I would suggest that it is unraveling. ``Iraq is still 
violent.'' 3,000 deaths a month. ``North Korea and Iran are still 
building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still 
occurring in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and across the 
planet.''
  Those are Newt Gingrich's words, today, in the Wall Street Journal.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So how is it then, given all that you have 
said, that with the world behind us in support of Operation Enduring 
Freedom, that we would, if you will excuse the phrase, why did we ``cut 
and run'' in Afghanistan and then focus on Iraq?
  As the gentleman from New York pointed out, people are able to 
distinguish between the enemy who actually knocked down the Twin Towers 
in New York, struck the Pentagon, and, as Tim Roemer pointed out 
yesterday, were it not for those brave souls on Flight 93, would have 
hit this Capitol. How did we go from the whole world being behind us, 
abandoning what has become, as Mr. Van Hollen often points out, the 
forgotten front in Afghanistan, take our eye off the prize and expend 
the amount of money, and, most importantly, our most precious resource, 
our men and women who serve this country in Iraq?

[[Page H6349]]

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, if one reviews the memoir of Paul O'Neill, former 
Republican Secretary of the Treasury, who served in this Bush 
administration for 2 years, and in that capacity was a member of the 
National Security Council, you will discover that he was as surprised 
as anyone when 10 days after this President was inaugurated at a 
National Security Council meeting, there was a discussion about Iraq 
and the need to remove Saddam Hussein who, about 6 weeks later on 
February 22 of 2001, months before 9/11, there was a meeting when 
Secretary Rumsfeld had a map of the oil fields in Iraq spread out on a 
table.
  The discussion, it was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
and there was a discussion about how those oil fields would be divvied 
up between nations and various big oil companies.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, and thank you, Mr. Larson, 
and others who are gathered here to talk about these very important 
national security questions. As you pointed out, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. 
Larson, we have taken our eye off the ball here. As we approach the 
terrible fifth anniversary of the tragic attacks of 2001, September 11, 
it is important to remember that the attacks upon our homeland were 
launched by al Qaeda from Afghanistan and had nothing to do with Iraq, 
nothing to do with Iraq.
  Yet here, as we gather 5 years later, we have not finished the job in 
Afghanistan. We have not finished the job against al Qaeda. Indeed, the 
situation is now getting worse today than it was a year ago and even a 
year before that.
  Now, the President has said in the last 10 days that he wants to have 
a national conversation about Iraq and national security, and he has 
delivered a number of speeches. But when you listen to what he has had 
to say, it is clear that unfortunately once again he is not interested 
in the national conversation. Conversation implies a give and take, a 
dialogue, an exchange of views.
  But when you listen to the President, on the one hand he lays out his 
idea of what he wants to go forward and then engages in finger-pointing 
and name calling of anybody who disagrees with him. Secretary Rumsfeld 
and Vice President Cheney have gone around this country engaging in 
name calling and finger-pointing against anyone who disagrees with 
them.
  They got all the answers, they tell us. You know what? For years and 
years they have gotten away with that by the majority in this Congress. 
The Republican majority in this Congress has essentially said, yes, you 
two have all the answers, and we are going to write you a blank check, 
and we are not going to ask you the hard questions.
  Well, I am glad the President wants to have a big national 
conversation. Let's make this a real conversation on national security. 
I say, let's have it, because I think when the American people look at 
the facts on the ground, and the fact that this administration has made 
our world and our country a much more dangerous place than it otherwise 
had to be, that people will ask questions about whose judgment is best 
in these matters.
  Let us just think back to May 2003 aboard the aircraft carrier USS 
Lincoln. The President gave a speech with a big banner behind him, 
``mission accomplished,'' mission accomplished. That was May 2003, more 
than 3 years ago. We haven't finished the mission in Afghanistan, and 
we have got a mess on our hands in Iraq.
  Let us just think back to more than a year ago. Vice President Cheney 
said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its, quote, final throes, the 
last gasp.
  Well, we just had a Pentagon report come out a few days ago. Here is 
what they had to say about that. In addition to a budding civil war or 
a civil war, they say the Sunni-based insurgency remains, quote, potent 
and viable.
  For years now Secretary Rumsfeld has been giving us these sorts of 
rosy scenarios about what would happen in Iraq, and he has been proven 
wrong again and again and again.
  So when the President and his people say to the American people, we 
have got all the answers, I think the American people get it now that 
they don't have all the answers. We need to have this debate and this 
discussion.
  Let me just quickly go back to the issue of Afghanistan, because the 
world was with us. We were united as a Nation, we were united as a NATO 
alliance, and we were united as an international community. The United 
Nations unanimously passed a resolution saying they were with the 
United States in its war on terror and its war on al Qaeda.
  Yet, today, al Qaeda is still active, they are still plotting, they 
are still trying to do harm to Americans and others around the world. 
Yet, if you look at what is happening in Afghanistan right now, we have 
got to be concerned. The United States is not doing all that it should 
in Afghanistan. The major resurgence has occurred in the southern part 
of Afghanistan. That has been the stronghold for the Taliban. Yet we 
have reduced, reduced, the number of U.S. forces in southern 
Afghanistan.
  Second, we, the Bush administration, disbanded the only unit within 
the CIA whose specific mission was to go after al Qaeda. They said, we 
don't need it anymore. That's what they said about a month ago. That 
was before the President again quoted Osama bin Laden a few days ago in 
one of his speeches for why we still need to be concerned. Well, we 
should be concerned. That is why what we are doing in Afghanistan has 
not made sense.
  Third, we just learned the other day that the opium production in 
Afghanistan is at an all-time record, all-time record. We know that the 
funds from those sales of those drugs are being used to fuel al Qaeda 
and the Taliban.
  Finally, finally, we just learned yesterday of this agreement now 
between the Government of Pakistan, General Musharraf, has entered into 
this agreement with the pro-Taliban militia, and the agreement says we, 
the Pakistan military, will now take a hands-off posture along the 
northwest frontier, that was the Waziristan part of Pakistan where the 
Taliban have regrouped and where al Qaeda has regrouped and what they 
have used to launch attacks into Afghanistan.
  Now Musharraf is saying, no, that is not what he meant. But it is 
very clear he has essentially said Pakistan military isn't coming after 
you anymore, you Taliban who are in that part of Pakistan. We have a 
hands-off policy. That is simply a signal to them that they can now 
more freely operate to try to step up their attacks in Afghanistan, 
that they can continue to collaborate with al Qaeda.
  So here we are, here we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of 
those tragic attacks launched from Afghanistan by al Qaeda because they 
were given safe haven by the Taliban, and we haven't finished the job, 
and we have reduced the amount of resources that we are committing to 
completing the mission. Mission accomplished, nowhere near it


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to 
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and Vice 
President.
  The gentleman from Connecticut may resume.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President has 
asked to engage, and the gentleman made several good points and one of 
them was about a new dialogue, long overdue, and I think welcomed by 
the American people. But as the gentleman from Maryland points out, a 
one-way street.
  Certainly no one knows better than the gentleman from Washington 
State. No one was vilified more, both on this floor and in public, 
because of love of country and speaking out, than Jim McDermott.
  I recognize the gentleman from Washington State.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you very much. As I sit here and I listen to 
this today, I think about the Katrina event. You saw the President go 
down and throw his arm around the guy who was fixing Katrina. He said, 
Good job, Brownie. I mean, that has become a laughingstock.
  Well, this President has done the same thing with Rumsfeld. Beginning 
in 2004, when Abu Ghraib came out, the President showed up and said the 
Secretary is doing a great job, right? This will not change as long as 
the President keeps Rumsfeld in that job, because Rumsfeld is the 
controlling power behind it all.
  As long as the President puts him out there and let's him run, you 
are going

[[Page H6350]]

to continue to have this stuff. Rumsfeld went to Iraq in July while we 
were on vacation, right at the end, and they found the bodies of 20 
kidnapped and murdered bus drivers the day he arrived. A bomber blew 
himself up and killed seven people. The Secretary of Defense made what 
I consider to be an interesting statement in response to that. He said, 
each time I come to Iraq, I see progress.
  Now, no one who has any kind of realistic view of this could say that 
kind of thing. You could not be watching what is going on, when it is 
to our troops who are dying, or the wounded who are coming home, or the 
thousands of Iraqis who are being killed and say, I see progress. There 
is simply, you have got your military people talking about the fact 
that it is coming apart, you had Rumsfeld this week say to some 
National Guardsmen from California, no, you can't go home, I know your 
enlistment is up, but you have got to stay here for another 120 days.
  We are going to send you into Baghdad to calm things down. It is a 
mess, and it has been a mess from the start because Rumsfeld would 
never listen. Like the President, he wouldn't listen. General Shinseki 
came in and said, you are going to need 300,000 troops. Rumsfeld said, 
you don't know what you are saying, you are out of here. Here is your 
retirement. Get out of here.
  That is the response to anybody who comes into this administration 
and talks. Unless the President will dump Rumsfeld, you are not going 
to get any change in the policy. What is the alternative to the people 
of this country? The only alternative they have is on election day to 
take the gavel away from the Republican majority so that we can have 
hearings run by Democrats where some questions will be asked, where 
there will be some accountability so that things will begin to come up 
into the public view.
  We have never found out what Halliburton's contracts are all about. 
We haven't found out who is responsible for Abu Ghraib. No, there isn't 
a soldier or a sailor or a marine or anyone near the military.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Is the gentleman suggesting that the more 
than $9 billion that is unaccounted for, that this Congress actually 
ought to go and find out what happened with those no-bid contracts, $9 
billion?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Only if you care about taxpayer money. I mean, the 
examples are so bald and so bad that it is almost laughable if it 
wasn't what was going on today and it was taking us down the wrong 
trail.
  What has been said here today is, I was reading the Middle Eastern 
papers today, everybody says that half of Afghanistan is now under 
control of the Taliban. That is universal in the press.
  The British general there is saying we are losing this thing; he is 
worried. We will not get a change unless we get some hard questions 
asked. We are never going to get them from the Republicans because they 
are going to rubber-stamp what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and all the 
rest of that bunch put together. I personally think this election is 
the most important election we have had in my lifetime.

                              {time}  1700

  You say to yourself maybe I am getting old or something, but I went 
through Vietnam, and I went through a whole bunch of things. But this 
one, if we have 2 more years of ``stay the course,'' God knows where we 
are going to be economically and militarily and politically and 
diplomatically in the world. We have got to get some change, and 
Rumsfeld would be a start. There are some other people that should go, 
but if the President can't see that Rumsfeld cannot handle it; he threw 
out Paul O'Neill as the Secretary of the Treasury, and he threw out 
some other people, Colin Powell and some others went down the road, but 
he keeps the guy who got us in the mess because it means he would have 
to admit that he made a huge mistake, and he can't do it. He can't do 
it, and that is the biggest problem he has.
  As politicians, sometimes you have to say, ``I was wrong. I made a 
mistake.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Maine who has been to 
the floor several times to talk about this very subject recently 
traveled to New Orleans also where he traveled with the Army Corps of 
Engineers where he saw firsthand what was going on there. As the 
gentleman from Washington states, one of the many salient points he 
made is the lack of accountability and the corollary between what has 
happened here domestically with Hurricane Katrina and Iraq.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank you all for the opportunity to be here and discuss 
some of these important issues that we don't get to do during any 
debate on resolutions or legislation. These are among the most 
important issues we deal with.
  I was down in New Orleans and in the gulf coast of Mississippi where 
the incompetence of this administration was on display for everyone to 
see. The same incompetence is on display with respect to the problems 
we have created in Iraq. And I say ``created'' because I do believe 
that in many ways this administration has created more problems in the 
Middle East than they have solved.
  I agree with the gentleman from Washington that a good part of this 
has to do with the inadequate leadership at the Department of Defense, 
but we should never forget that this policy is driven by the President 
and the Vice President and there is a unanimity of thinking in this 
administration about the Middle East, the conviction that we could 
simply force our will on several hundred million people and bend them 
to become something that we want them to become, regardless of their 
own intentions.
  But I wanted to speak for a minute tonight about how Congress, this 
Republican Congress, has aided and abetted the administration by giving 
up its constitutional role of exercising oversight over the executive 
branch. It is absolutely stunning to me how both the House and the 
Senate have done everything that they could to rubber stamp 
administration policies in Iraq and cover up for them.
  A few examples, going back to when Democrats controlled the Congress 
in the 1980s, there was an Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services, 
and that oversight subcommittee discovered those $500 hammers and 
$6,000 toilet seats and put an end to much of that kind of 
overcharging. But when Republicans took over, they eliminated the 
Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services and billions of questionable 
Halliburton contracts have gone unexamined, unexamined by either Armed 
Services or by the Intelligence Committee or the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  The minority staff on the Committee on Government Reform has 
identified over 200 specific misleading statements made by the 
administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Over on the Senate side, 
remember they had Phase II, the Senate Intelligence Committee was going 
to do a Phase II investigation. What they meant by that was instead of 
beating up on the intelligence agencies like the CIA themselves, they 
were going to look at the misuse of intelligence by the administration. 
That was Phase II of their study.
  It hasn't happened. Years have gone by, and the chairman of the 
committee has said several times, ``We are going to get to that 
later.'' But they are clearly not going to do it before any election.
  In 2005, House Republicans voted down a resolution demanding an 
investigation of Iraq intelligence. When you look at the House and you 
look at the Senate, there is no question what this Republican Congress 
has been doing. Rather than gather information, evidence, that could 
clarify what has happened in the past and guide us to a better policy 
in the future, it is all politics all the time and that means 
protecting the President from being exposed, protecting the Vice 
President from being exposed, protecting Donald Rumsfeld from being 
exposed for having not spoken the truth.
  So this entire Congress is complicit.
  The Senate held a few hearings after Abu Ghraib, but no Senate 
committee has conducted a comprehensive public probe of the alleged 
abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram or the secret CIA 
facilities that the President just acknowledged yesterday.
  In the House, the majorities on three House committees voted down 
resolutions seeking documents about detainee abuse. Democrats have been 
saying we need the information in order to

[[Page H6351]]

do a better job in the future, and Republicans have circled the wagons 
around the administration and refused to basically allow oversight.
  On Iraq reconstruction, you go back to 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's 
Pentagon awarded a $7 billion sole-source contract to Halliburton for 
reconstruction. And 3 years later, auditors identified more than $1 
billion in questionable and unsupported costs under that contract. A 
billion dollars in Washington is still real money. If Congress was 
simply doing its constitutionally mandated function, we would be 
holding hearings on that. But no, the Republicans are not prepared to 
investigate Halliburton. Vice President Cheney was once the CEO of 
Halliburton, and this is ground we dare not go into, apparently, and 
yet we have to, to fulfill our constitutional responsibility.
  That is what we are basically saying here. This Republican Congress 
has failed the country. The administration has failed the country. And 
when Democrats control this chamber again, whether you have a 
Republican President or a Democratic President, we are going to make 
sure that this Congress acts like the Congress contemplated in the 
Constitution and do our jobs.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from New York started and 
began this conversation by talking about what has transpired, and the 
gentleman from Maryland talked about the President and his calling over 
the last several days, both he and the Secretary of Defense and the 
Vice President have been out there, along with the Secretary of State, 
talking about this new agenda, and I believe the gentleman from New 
York has some thoughts on that.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. It seems like we are being treated to a late 
summer/early fall offensive, I would say smoke screen on the part of 
this administration to convince the American people that we need to 
stay the course in order to be safe.
  Basically what they are doing is they are engaged in defending the 
indefensible. The only way they can defend a war that the American 
people have clearly turned against is to present it in a context that 
makes it appear to be reasonable or defensible, but in fact quite the 
opposite is the case.
  I think all of us as elected officials, we have no more solemn 
responsibility than to provide for the safety and security of those who 
have elected us to represent them. But I think a fair-minded person has 
to look at the record of where this administration has taken this 
Nation and where this Congress, complicit in the strategies and 
objectives of this administration, have taken this country.
  Every single place you look, it reeks with failure. The 9/11 
Commission presented to us 41 carefully crafted bipartisan 
recommendations. This Congress has only acted on 20 or 21 of them. The 
9/11 Commission, again a bipartisan group, has given this 
administration and this Congress 14 Ds, 5 Fs and 2 incompletes on those 
recommendations.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. What is the Congress's report card again?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Fourteen Ds, five Fs and two incompletes; and 
this is a leadership that is going to keep us safe and secure?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. And we are approaching the fifth 
anniversary.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. We are approaching the fifth anniversary, and 
we have outstanding work on the part of this commission, bipartisan 
work which is what we ought to be striving for. We ought to be 
approaching the safety and security of this Nation in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Are any of those issues going to be 
brought to the floor? Those recommendations, those outstanding 
recommendations, will any of them be brought to the floor before we 
adjourn for elections?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am not aware of anything on the calendar.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just go back to a point made by Tom Allen. The 
lack of accountability, the abrogation, if you will, of this body's 
constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight.
  We serve on different committees. I happen to be the senior Democrat, 
the ranking member, on a subcommittee of International Relations that 
is entitled Oversight and Investigations. We have not held one serious 
hearing relative to Iraq in the past 2 years. And I know that, prior to 
that, for the past 5 years, Iraq has been off the chart in terms of the 
committee's considerations. You don't talk about it unless there is 
good news.
  What I wanted to do was to bring before the committee, not Secretary 
Rumsfeld because we have heard enough from him. He is an F. He flunked. 
But I wanted to bring before the committee the men that lead our 
military and have served in the course of their service to this country 
in roles implicating Iraq, in some cases very directly in Iraq.
  Not one of these men have ever been invited to any committee in the 
Congress so that we would have an opportunity to hear what they had to 
say.
  So one by one, they felt compelled to speak out themselves and 
educate us and the American people as to the truth and the reality of 
Iraq and the incompetence of this administration and most specifically 
Donald Rumsfeld.
  Let me just review a few.
  Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, he is the top operations officer for 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was involved in the planning. He is 
Commanding General, First Marine Division, with Legion of Merit, Navy 
and Marine Corps Commendation Medals. He is a highly decorated, well-
respected general. He did not seek a promotion because he felt 
compelled to leave. Here is what he had to say.
  ``What we are living with now are the consequences of successive 
policy failures.'' He said that this year.
  Major General Paul Eaton, who was given the responsibility but not 
the resources to train Iraqi security forces, and we know what a joke 
that has been, here is what he had to say, ``Two and a half more years 
of that leadership,'' he was referring to Donald Rumsfeld and the 
civilian leadership, ``two and a half more years of that leadership was 
too long for my Nation, for my Army, and for my family.'' What an 
indictment. What an indictment.
  Lieutenant General John Riggs, ``They only need the military advice 
when it satisfies their agenda.'' When it satisfies their agenda, that 
is when they would call in a general and say, This is our agenda, what 
do you think, General?
  And then General Wesley Clark, ``They pressed for open warfare before 
the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It was a strategic 
blunder.''

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. McDERMOTT. We could go on with this for a long time, but we have 
got Major General John Batiste. He was the commander of the 1st 
Division in Iraq, and he said: ``Rumsfeld and his team have turned what 
should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged 
challenge.'' I mean, that is a guy who was on the ground, who was there 
when the war was going on.
  General Zinni, who was the central command of the whole forces, he 
served in every level of command, and he said: ``We are paying the 
price for a lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan.'' Ten 
years' worth of planning was thrown away. That is why we are in the 
mess we are. Because Rumsfeld said we don't need these guys like Zinni, 
who is my number one guy in the U.S. Central Command. That means he 
headed everything in the whole area of the Middle East.
  Major General Swannack said: ``I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is 
the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in 
managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.'' Now, he was commander of the 
82nd Airborne. We all know about the Airborne. We know these are real 
soldiers. These are people who follow the leader. They do not speak out 
until they cannot stand it any longer.
  And, finally, Lieutenant General Paul Riper said: ``If I was 
President, I would have relieved him 3 years ago.'' And he said that in 
2006.
  Now, this man was wounded in action in Vietnam. He won the Silver 
Star medal with a gold star, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star. This 
man has been wounded, has stood up in the worst kind of war. And, 
remember, Rumsfeld never served. Bush never served. Cheney never 
served. Wolfowitz never served. You cannot find anybody who has ever 
been in a war. And the

[[Page H6352]]

guys who know, who have done it, who sent people out to die and been 
right out there with them say things like, If I was President, I would 
have relieved him 3 years ago. That is 2003. That is when it started, 
when they started ill prepared without the battle armor, without the 
vehicle armor, without sufficient supplies. We are going to just run in 
and do it, and we are going to be out in 6 months. Remember when they 
told that lie? And all of us stood around and said, 6 months? Really? 
This is going to be a cakewalk.
  They didn't tell the truth to the American people or to their own 
troops. And that is why guys like this say get them out of there if we 
are going to have any change.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from 
Maine, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington State for 
coming down here this evening.
  We come down here out of love of country and the desire to fulfill 
our constitutional responsibility. There is no doubt in my mind that 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as 
much as we do.
  I cannot understand why an administration continues to attack those 
who, out of love of country, speak out and dare to speak truth to 
power, that are willing to ask the unimagined questions and perhaps 
give unwelcomed answers to the administration. But that is the work 
that is required of elected Members of the United States Congress under 
our Constitution. That is our sworn obligation to the people of this 
great country of ours and will continue to be our obligation.
  It is our sincere hope that we can move this Nation in a new 
direction. And with a Democratic-controlled Congress, we believe that 
is the best hope for our colleagues on the other side to join with us 
in creating what is in the best interest of our troops, our families, 
and the very security of this Nation.
  Thank you, gentlemen, each of you, for joining us this evening.

                          ____________________